Could journals please stop calling it an 'invitation to review'. Invitations are meant for pleasant things like parties or weddings, not to carry out work for free so that someone else can make lots of money.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
If you want to dispute the semantics of this with me then please accept this invitation to clean my oven. You can see it as an opportunity to contribute while developing key skills if you like.
I have mixed feelings about paying reviewers, particularly when it's for society journals, but the least they can do is stop pretending that it's a treat for me.
I agree that for some journals does not make sense. But most journals operate as a business based on the free labor of reviewers, which get nothing out it.
I am also 100% fine with basing Science on cooperative, non-profit efforts, but that is not what mist publishers are doing
There are other objections, including the mixed incentives that follow from financial inducements, payment inequities among reviewers, the challenge of deciding what is an appropriate fee (I can't imagine any consensus on this) so I'm reluctant to take sides.
While we're at it, let's stop using the word "retreat" for mandatory day-long meeting in a different location that may be less comfortable, convenient, and/or productive than the typical meeting room options
In my experience they can be useful sometimes, but the word "retreat" makes me think of a luxury hot springs resort, so the reality is always miserable by comparison
Comments
I am also 100% fine with basing Science on cooperative, non-profit efforts, but that is not what mist publishers are doing